SHOULD we study and practice scales and modes?

[elixzer]

I have been reading about Robert Conti, and checked out some videos of his guitar playing which see really cool.

At his site he really warns against people being conned by pseudo Jazz 'masters' of guitar who promise the world for money, and Conti emphasizes the need to ALWAYS ask for credentials.

But this thread is more about Conti's philosophy that it is useless to learn scales and modes for improvisation:

"Like the early Founding Fathers, the verifiable high level of Robert Conti's playing skill is the result of NOT studying modes, scales and theory. Since 1966, he has adhered to an unshakeable philosophy that spending time memorizing modes and scales will take you forever to get nowhere, as the only thing you will accomplish is playing scales very well. As indicated in the interview excerpt below, Robert's philosophy since he began teaching in 1966 is to direct all energies toward playing the music and the working theory will become obvious as a result of playing."

"...you can only learn to play jazz guitar - by practicing jazz, not useless modes or scales. In direct contradiction to modes and scales"

"As most aspiring students soon discover, there is no shortage of educators who will try to convince you to believe that modes, scales and theory are the only correct path to learn to play improvised jazz. The obvious question - if improvising well is your goal, then why pursue modes, scales and theory first? After spending several months or years trying to comprehend modes, scales and theory you'll still need to learn to play.
Conversely, if you expend your energy learning to play well (the same approach as all the early greats) you'll quickly discover two great truths: 1) Modes and scales are useless. They were not necessary for stellar players like Wes Montgomery, Grant Green et al and they are most certainly not necessary for you to learn. 2) Theory suddenly becomes obvious as a by-product of playing lines that are tangible enough for clear analysis.
From the student perspective, the best part of this pragmatic approach is that they have the great pleasure of practicing and playing jazz on their instrument, rather than trying to comprehend painfully boring modes, theory, scales etc."


Does anyone here know what he means? I had no idea that Jazz greats of the past didn't study modes and scales. So how then did they learn to improvise so masterfully.
OBVIOUSLY I am very much wanting to find more out about this, for IF, as Conti says, expounding time and energy over scales and modes is "useless" I would like to try something else, but need to know what that might be?

[mr. beaumont]

chord tones.

but it's all roadmaps to the same destination, you just have to find what works for you. Conti's a big name, but his playing leaves me cold, and I've never seen any "all or nothing" approach that's any good, IMHO.

[elixzer]

chord tones.

but it's all roadmaps to the same destination, you just have to find what works for you. Conti's a big name, but his playing leaves me cold, and I've never seen any "all or nothing" approach that's any good, IMHO.

Curious:

---what do you mean by "chord tones"--I know what it means, but i mean for the context of what i asked?

And why does his playing leave you cold?

And remember he claims that past Jazz great didn't study the scales and modes either.

[mr. beaumont]

that's what i meant actually, by "chord tones," that that was how players past often viewed things.

a chord tone approach is one of viewing the fretboard in terms of arpeggios. arpeggios here are simply chord tones, not the shred sweep biz, and by no means do they need to be played in order. It's how I view the fretboard most of the time, unless a different model is more fitting.

which gets back to my point, no one approach works for everything, everytime.

as far as conti leaving me cold, that's just my personal opinion. I just don't hear anything in his playing that I can latch on to, it's very clean, but it's also very academic sounding, to my ears. I gotta hear some soul.

[nomelite]

mr beaumont maybe this is for another thread, but I have that feeling with Pat Martino. Maybe he's too advanced for me, but I only hear scale exercises in his solos. I will appreciate your comments on this one.

[Aristotle]

SHOULD we study and practice scales and modes?

And arpeggios. It's more a question of how, rather than if.

I tend to be a critic of overly scale-centric approaches, but I think that very few good players don't know all the chord-scale relationships, even if that is not what drives theri improviasational directions.

Also, there some loose use of terms, and over-emphasis when it comes to "modes." I was looking at some lessons on All Things Emily. The advice was to use E-Dorian over a A7sus. I am not disagreeing with the advice, but it's 1) playing a D-scale over key-of-D chord, which is just all the inside notes; and 2) no matter what the soloist "thinks," if the bass player is holding onto to an A, it's not "dorian."

[jeffstocksmusic]

I had to re-read the portion you pasted a few times to make sure I got it all. To be honest, I get fairly tired of hearing about what players of the past did or didn't do since I am not them and they are not me. Without fail, one side or the other will make a completely hyperbolized claim. It seems to pop up a lot these days, in my opinion as a reaction to the Berklee chord/scale method. 'Players of the past' apparently got it completely correct by doing something so you should too. Guess that stops at Loius Armstrong and doesn't apply to Bach, et al.....

I have no idea what Conti is selling, and don't really care. Making a claim that anything is useless is completely indefensible to my satisfaction. It may be EXACTLY what you need to unlock the sounds in your head. Or it may be the last thing you need. Ultimately, you will have to find that path that works. Sample and see what works.

I tire of salesmen with secrets.

[elixzer]

I had to re-read the portion you pasted a few times to make sure I got it all. To be honest, I get fairly tired of hearing about what players of the past did or didn't do since I am not them and they are not me. Without fail, one side or the other will make a completely hyperbolized claim. It seems to pop up a lot these days, in my opinion as a reaction to the Berklee chord/scale method. 'Players of the past' apparently got it completely correct by doing something so you should too. Guess that stops at Loius Armstrong and doesn't apply to Bach, et al.....

I have no idea what Conti is selling, and don't really care. Making a claim that anything is useless is completely indefensible to my satisfaction. It may be EXACTLY what you need to unlock the sounds in your head. Or it may be the last thing you need. Ultimately, you will have to find that path that works. Sample and see what works.

I tire of salesmen with secrets.

Well thats what HE warns about! So your saying he's pulling a fast one? Doin HIMSELF what he warns about, and that in order to dig what he means you have to buy his DVDS?

All I am going on is his saying how earlier great musicians didn't do cales and modes---that is down the rabbit hole for me, and hence I am trying to get some real feedback (no money exchanged) info on people who may know more aboutthe history of Jazz

I am just wondering how you would even PLAY without knowing scales and modes. Chord tones have been mentioned but I would need a far more in=depth explanation

I am learning the chord tomes of C major at the moment---

Anyhow I just need to understand what Conti meant. IS he lying to sell. I cant really believe that ---who can answer these questions?

[oilywrag]

While I am a mere novice when it comes to jazz,I cant work out why you shouldn't learn scales and arps in all keys all over the neck.How else would you know where you are up to.You can't guess can you, or perhaps you can I think its here I play no its not its the next fret up or is it down.Damm the songs finished and I havent had my solo yet.Elixzer I think there comes a time when enough questions have been asked and it boils down to, do you or don't you want to play jazz guitar??I dont ask a lot of questions on here because I find to much info to soon is no good.When I get to the point when I am ready for the next phase I will ask,for now it is about me learning all keys all over the neck,plus arps and improv over ii,V,I's and minor ii,V,I's and ii,V's.CM's can wait a while as can other things that I am just not ready for.Anyway enough from me.Hope this spells out my point of veiw for you.

Tom

[jeffstocksmusic]

who can answer these questions?

To be honest, only you. I am honestly not being coy. Can you learn to 'play jazz' w/o ever learning a 'scale'? Probably so. You have 80+ years of recorded music to transcribe. You could start transcribing Joplin melodies, through Armstrong, Bird, all the way to Monder. You would have a good handle on vocabulary which is, I believe, what most people think about when they hear 'playing jazz'. Your ear would be strong, your technique sound, and you would have a pool of ideas.

I think that is what Conti is writing. It is an approach. Is it the only approach....no. You could very easily do the same thing while studying scales and theory. It will likely inform what you are transcribing.

Again, my issue isn't necessarily with his approach but rather the marketing. Same with other 'old schoolers' (bruno, the 'play what you hear guy', etc. It is a very clear reaction to the more modern sound/approach, which happens to be what interests me. Plus, I am a skeptic about most things, including my own beliefs. I question everything.

[Jake Hanlon]

plenty of world class players think modally and in that theory of chord/scale application.

There is validity to it. You need to know your modes and scales. How you put your vocabulary together is up to the individual.

[billkath]

I've come to jazz from another angle, in that I play country, rock and pop guitar, and wanted to learn jazz. I decided that I WANTED to learn some theory, scales, arps etc. I thought "I want to do this properly", and also because I'm doing more pit work, musicaldirection and theatre work. I NEED to learn it.

Now-I didn't know the scales, modes and arps before, but was able to knock out lead riffs etc, and to a good professional level. Originals and covers. What I'm finding is what those things I've being doing ARE scales, modes, arps and stuff-just I didn't know it. I think that's an important distinction. Just because famous people haven't studied theory, and couldn't tell you the notes in a lydian mode or even what a lydian mode is DOESN'T mean they aren't using it every day.

What I think Conti is talking about is that there are OTHER ways to play jazz. You don't NEED theory. He's talking about learning jazz the very same way as I learned to play the Beatles songs-by listening. By buying a chord book, learning the chords to the song, then learning the riff. And by learning to play by ear. I've always been able to back nearly anyone in most songs they do by ear-through years of playing.

What learning theory HAS done for me is that I'm no longer all at sea when I'm talking to a musical director in an orchestral pit. I don't have to bluff any more. I'm also now, when backing someone without knowing the song, am able to think of the song in terms of key, scales and likely progressions and chords within a scale. I've learnt about the cycle of fifths. So useful. I've been doing it for years, but now I'm understanding the WHY.

So-he's dead right-you don't need to learn all that stuff. But-it's bloody useful to know. And-whether you know what it's called or not-you WILL be using it.

[Drumbler]

I think what Robert Conti means is to learn jazz licks instead of practicing scales, modes, etc.

Jazz songs contain a number of repetitive chord sequences (like 2-5-1 and 1-6-2-5-4). So Conti suggests practicing jazz licks that work over these sequences instead of spending your time running scales up and down.

That's my take.

[bako]

chord tones.

I see this touted as the antidote to modal/scale playing frequently on this forum.

What is the risk of using modes/scales?
At worst one plays meandering, unfocused lines, too mechanical and pattern like. Too much thought, not enough feeling.

What is the risk of playing by chord tones?
It can sound too basic as well as too mechanical. Too much thought , not enough feeling.

Modes/scales vs chord tones.
This is silly. They are both just building blocks. They are part of the same continuum.
I practice all these raw materials to train my ears, fingers and harmonic understanding.
I try to make music with them in different musical practice contexts at home. On the bandstand they either appear or they don't.

Theory like musical notation is a symbolic language representing sounds and only come to life when we reinvigorate them with our personal energy and inspiration. We have to commit to telling a story, take risks, listen fiercely and play empathetically within the collective (the band).

[wizard3739]

I spent many years practising scales and looking for ways to make them less boring. I ended up inventing scale-based exercises that included arpeggios, intervals and playing scales through the cycle of 5ths. I don't regret doing the exercises as they gave me a somewhat permanent finger agility. However, if I was able to do it all over again, I would definitely put more emphasis very early on listening, transcribing and playiing the music I love, in particular, the old standards and the jazz masters who interpreted them so well. I must also add that I learned many, many, many chords before I knew where they came from.

wiz

[fumblefingers]

competently playing scales and their modes ascending and descending is a basic musicianship skill. like pushups for a boxer. and, real music is full of scales and modes - but only up to a point.

so if that is ALL you do when you practice, then Conti has a point.

but who ever said that is all that you should do? nobody that i have ever heard of. i'll be darned if i can find a single big shot jazz educator who has ever said "scales and modes are your keys to the kingdom"

playing scales and modes like a robot is not a matter of professional advice, its more a matter of what untutored individuals fall into on their own. so, Conti is warning them. thats probably ok as long as it isnt likewise taken to the extreme.

Conti is overmaking a point, but may be confusing the uneducated. Mark Stefani does the same thing.

all IMO of course.

[Space Pickle]

Conti's a big name,

I'd actually never heard of him until I found this website.

Anyway, what he's talking about is that learning scales won't teach you to improvise. Neither will learning licks. These are both things that are good to work on but they're not going to make you an improviser. The only thing that makes you an improviser is figuring out what you actually want to say. You need to get some vocabulary.

I think the only way to learn how to go from can't improvise to competent (i.e. playing lines that mostly make sense) is to put the metronome on really slow and try to play a tune.

[magerlab]

i am a very novice in jazz guitar, but i believe that unless you have a perfect pitch you must know at least basic chord-scale relationships to play anything.

what guitar has, I think, is it's visual "map" and what i always dreamed to do is to see the whole picture with chords snd scales

[abracadabra]

Well I'm also just a beginner, but it seems to me that you need to know your chord tones either way. They're like a map for moving through the song, and if you know them you can use them, or ignore them, as you wish. How much you bias your practice to consciously sticking to a scale versus using the chromatics+chord tones approach is a matter of taste. But even if you play scale-based stuff, you still need to know your arps.

[Modalguru]

In the 90s lots of books with dozens of scales and shredding licks were published and all raved about it. To be hip, it was enough knowing the terminology, not many guitarists could really played all those things and many got frustrated by registering the amount of scales, chords, arps, etc to learn. Now I have the impression, that there are some folks out there, promising the frustrated players for a few dollars, that everybody can learn playing jazz without learning all those scales, etc.

Well, who of the great players really uses all the scales and modes? I guess no one. They know all the scales by theory, but they are only using a few. Every player has his/her favorit scales. Why? You have to internalise the sound and feel of each scale, see the chords and arps underneath of it. But this are just the words of the jazz language. You have to learn phrasing and slang, too (oherwise your solos will just sound like scale-exercises). That takes lots of time. Most hobby-guitarists have limited time for practice and then they rush over the material, because the think, they have to learn it all in a couple of weeks or months.

The learning by playing method has some drawbacks for me:
Without the instrument you can't explain things to other musicians, cause you lack terminology and theory. You also have to learn many things serveral times, cause you don't know how to apply one thing to different situations. Learning theory is also a source of imagination and creativity. And have you already discovered, that those guys offering the no-scales-modes-methods know all the theory by themselves? And the material is in their exercises and licks, too, they just don't name it.

That's why I think, it's best to get a teacher, who is teaching a concept and shows to apply the material to different situations. But all of the new material should be applied to songs immediately, or you will forget it faster, than you have learned it. And reading a good book on theory doesen't hurt, too.

Just my 2c.

Cheers, Chris

[Uli]

I am very suspicious whenever theories are presented according to which the "founding fathers" did not really have a clue about what they were playing. IMO it's another romantic idea of the naturally gifted genius and a welcoming excuse for our natural tendency to avoid excessive practice...

If you read the autobiographies of Dizzy Gillespie or Miles Davis you will find out that they knew a hell of a lot about theory and scales and if you listen to their music you cannot ignore that they even knew how to apply it.

You might discuss whether it's rather scales than arps but it all will boil down to the question which method works best for you. Personally, I think arps are a good way of getting youself organized on the fretboard. On the other hand, a pretty little scale, like a straight Major scale played over a Major7 chord, could also add something and be far from making your improvisation sound boring.

[magerlab]

i read a bit on Miles Davis and Coltrane and it's very interesting that they both studied George Russell's lydian concepts and tried to apply modal theory into jazz.
on the other side it's written of many guitarists that they could not read music( Wes or blues giants like Buddy Guy)
Django could not even read or write letters.

[elixzer]

I am just trying to picture what NOT practising scales and modes would look/feel like?

What would be the structure you would use to improvise. Some in this thread say --chord tones, and transcribing? Is that right?

Another Brazillian guitarist ('NEY') at Learn How To Play Guitar - Guitar Lessons based on the laws of body learning answered another member's post about transcibing that it is BETTER to rather learn straight to guitar rather than write it down--which I am guessing is what 'transcribing' is?

So yeah, what would be the ACTION of NOT doing scales and modes I am wondering? Could you simply lay it out

[elixzer]

.Elixzer I think there comes a time when enough questions have been asked and it boils down to, do you or don't you want to play jazz guitar??I dont ask a lot of questions on here because I find to much info to soon is no good.
Tom

My mode of action, if you will, IS to ask questions. I do this about reality, and of course about music too. Music should be about always asking questions---even for the experienced player I feel

And that is why I copied this quote down years ago, because I really gelled with what it means:

'If you're an asker you'll be a knower:
poetry's knotty and wily -
the riddles you hear are windows,
and the door is enquiry...'

-Gofraidh Fionn O'Dalaigh

[fumblefingers]

learning patterns and licks against progressions. you will encounter a lot of progressions over and over again so once you have some solid chops down...